Click image to order

New solar model claims 97% predictive accuracy – cooler times ahead

Another solar theory rolls off the production line – as ever, time will tell if it lives up to its own billing.

A new model of the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat suggests that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s, dropping to conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, reports Ice Age Now.

Beginning in about 1645, the Maunder minimum corresponded with the severest portion of the last
“Little Ice Age.”

Results of the new study were to be presented yesterday by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

Many solar physicists think the solar cycle is driven by a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. However, when Zharkova and her colleagues added a second dynamo close to the surface, they found that it completed the picture with unprecedented accuracy. “Our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.

The model predicts that the waves from the two dynamos will become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, from about 2030 to 2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch, leading to a significant reduction in solar activity.

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”

In other words, we should expect continued deterioration in global climatic conditions between now and 2022, at the peak of Cycle 25. That’s only seven years away! Then it will get worse. We will be praying for global warming.

“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.

This prediction is practically already falsified. The solar minimum for SC24 isn’t expected by anyone until the end of 2019, and it’s usually at least three years from then before the start of the next cycle maximum, putting the earliest time of SC25 max at 2023, and as late as 2025.

There is no information available today wrt SC26 – that will have to wait until SC25 is between its max and the next following minimum. There is no solid information as to the timing and magnitude of SC25 max as of today either – only educated guesses, one being at 66% of SC24 max.

I do expect temps to start declining sometime between now and 2017 from the SC24 slowdown.

The reason it could take to the end of 2017 is the thermal lag from the oceans (ie after this El Nino). That is the result of my solar flux supersensitivity model, based on F10.7cm flux.

I’m as eager to find out as Salvatore. He says it’s 100 sfu, I say it’s ~120 sfu…

This month we could go below 120 sfu/day average for the month for the first time since SC24 max. It’s sometime between now and Dec this year for 120; and for 100, sometime between Dec this year and Dec next year, according to NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. (see ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/weekly/Predict.txt, updated at the end of the first week every month)

This is not meant to say whether or not the authors of this particular study have a valid method or not, since we haven’t seen the paper to say one way or the other…

Valentina Zharkova is a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. She has a BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, certificate in project management.

EE Valentina Zharkova Staffprofile 255I am a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. I have BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, certificate in project management.

I graduated from the National University of Kyiv, Ukraine in 1975 with a BSc/M.Sc. first class with distinction degree in Applied Mathematics and Physics (joint honours). In 19I75-1978 worked as Junior researcher at Physics and Applied Maths Department, then moved to the Solar Division of the Main Astronomical Observatory, Kyiv, Ukraine for my Ph.D. studies in Applied Mathematics/Solar Theory. After successfully defending my thesis in non-LTE radiative transfer entitled “Hydrogen emission in quiescent solar prominences with filamentary structure”, I worked at Space Science Laboratory, Physics Department, National University of Kyiv as junior researcher, lecturer/researcher senior lecturer/senior researcher (1978-1994). In 1992 I joined the Astronomy Group of Glasgow University as the Senior Royal Society visitor, then a Research Fellow (1993-1999). In 2000 I became a Lecturer at the University of Bradford, in 2002 I was appointed to a Reader and in 2005 to a Professor in Applied Mathematics. From September 2013 I joined the Northumbria University as a Professor in Mathematics.https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/

A very interesting study which may be highly relevant to predictions of solar activity within the next few decades, but which i think should not be looked upon as a reliable historical model of solar variability and associated climate prediction. Not sure where the 97% claim comes from as the authors in fact say:

The short timescale associated with such stunning accuracy appears to be associated with the fact that the solar dynamo has a ‘short memory’. I quote:

“This systematic deviation in the predicted solar activity of sunspot numbers from those actually measured in cycle 24 discussed above signals very loudly a significant discrepancy between the processes used in the prediction compared to those defining the solar activity cycle through the action of the solar dynamo. . . . . .
. . . . Independently of a method of prediction, the question remains as to why the action of the solar dynamo, which is associated with both the poloidal magnetic field of the Sun and the toroidal field of sunspots, is tested and predicted using only the characteristics of sunspots.. . . . .
. . . . However, a number of researchers have already concluded that a different proxy for solar activity is needed, and this proxy is more frequently associated with the solar background magnetic field . . . . . ”

The authors may well have uncovered a mathematical law which governs the behaviour of the solar dynamo – which in turn is a good proxy for solar activity over short timescales. This is just another piece of evidence pointing firmly in the direction of an imminent and significant decline in solar activity. Consensus climate science tells us that CO2 will swamp natural variability in the medium to long term. Even if that is the case – and I doubt it – if solar activity declines as dramatically as is predicted within the next 20 years, Europe and the US will cool very significantly and the world probably will too.

“In recent years, a good correlation was found between the polar magnetic field in the solar minimum and the sunspot numbers in the next solar cycle (Kitchatinov & Olemskoy 2011 ;Munoz-Jaramillo et al. 2013). The idea behind this close correlation is hidden in the high diffusivity Babcock–Leighton dynamo model, which was proposed by Choudhuri et al. (2007). However, the Babcock–Leighton-type flux transport dynamomodel (Karak & Nandy 2012) is shown to produce a reliable prediction for no more than one solar cycle because of the short memory of the dynamo.”

I agree that the reference to 2022 is confusing as that will likely be closer to the minimum between the current cycle and the next. Zharkova et all should revisit this discrepancy. Otherwise the idea of a double dynamo is interesting.

pochas says:
Like others I was suspicious of the short 10 year cycles the model predicts.
The problem is that there are two peaks for each solar hemisphere .. I showed that in the south north peak was in 2011, exactly 11 years after the previous peak.

Principle component analysis (PCA) of the solar background magnetic field (SBMF) measured from Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) magnetograms revealed the following principal components (PCs) in latitudes: two main symmetric components, which are the same for all cycles 21-23, and three pairs of asymmetric components, which are unique for each cycle. These SBMF variations are assumed to be those of poloidal magnetic field travelling slightly off-phase from pole to pole while crossing the equator. They are assumed to be caused by a joint action of dipole and quadruple magnetic sources in the Sun.

In the current paper, we make the first attempt to interpret these latitudinal variations in the surface magnetic field with Parker’s two-layer dynamo model. The latitudinal distributions of such waves are simulated for cycles 21-23 by the modified Parker’s dynamo model taking into account both α and ω effects operating simultaneously in the two (upper and lower) layers of the solar convective zone (SCZ) and having opposite directions of meridional circulation. The simulations are carried out for both dipole and quadruple magnetic sources with the dynamo parameters specifically selected to provide the curves fitting closely the PCs derived from SBMF variations in cycles 21-23. The simulations are optimised for matching the positions of maximums in latitude, the number of equator crossings and the phase difference between the two dynamo waves operating in the two layers. The dominant pair of PCs present in each cycle is found to be fully asymmetric with respect to the magnetic poles and produced by a magnetic dipole. This pair is found to account for the two main dynamo waves operating between the two magnetic poles. There are also three further pairs of waves unique to each cycle and associated with multiple magnetic sources in the Sun. For the odd cycle 21 the simulated poloidal field fits the observed PCs, only if they are produced by magnetic sources with a quadruple symmetry in both layers, while for the even cycle 22 the fit to the observed PCs is achieved only in the case of quadruple magnetic sources in the upper layer and dipole sources in the inner layer. For the other odd cycle 23 the fit to observation is obtained for the quadruple magnetic sources in the inner layer and the dipole sources in the upper layer. The magnitudes of dynamo numbers D defining the conditions (depth and latitude) of a magnetic flux formation and the numbers N of zeros (equator crossings by the waves) are found to increase and the meridional circulation speed to decrease with a cycle number increase (D = -700, N = 3 for cycle 21 and D = -104, N = 9 for cycle 23). The phase delays between the waves in each unique pairs are also found to increase with the cycle number from ~9° in cycle 21 to ~13° in cycle 23.http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260728946_Probing_latitudinal_variations_of_the_solar_magnetic_field_in_cycles_21-23_by_Parker's_Two-Layer_Dynamo_Model_with_meridional_circulation

This paper was put together somewhat casually. Figure 4 has the SC 23/24 minimum in 2005 instead of December 2008. And that is historical data. Figure 1 has the SC 24/25 minimum in about 2019. In Figures 2 and 4 it is shifted to 2017.

As to the likely timing of the SC 24/25 minimum, Hathaway’s most recent curve-fitting suggests 2022 which would make SC 24 13 years long.

“Hence, the oscillations of the SBMF will continue to decrease
in the next two cycles with a decrease in the amplitude of
the summary component for cycle 26 by a factor of four
compared to the PC in cycle 21 or by factor of two for cycle 23.
Furthermore, the two PCs in cycles 25 and 26 are found to have
a large phase shift of about half of the period (10 yr) having
opposite signs of the PCs in the periods of the expected solar
activity maxima when these waves are expected to interfere with
each other in the same hemisphere and to create visible solar
activity on its surface in the form of magnetic flux tubes seen
as sunspots.
In other words, the PC waves detected in SBMF are predicted
to travel with increasing phase shifts approaching nearly an antiphase
in the next two cycles when the red wave is only present
in the northern (cycle 25) and southern (cycle 26) hemispheres
while the blue wave travels in the southern (cycle 25) and the
northern (cycle 26) hemispheres. This can result in the absence
of many of the visible signs of SBMF variations listed at the start
of the Section 2.3 (Zharkova et al. 2012) and thus, in the lack of
solar activity in general in the classic sense of sunspot appearances.

The solar current feedback in return modulates the
Sun’s surface magnetic activity. Return leg of the
solar current splits into two parts according to the
polarity, then each splinter of the current affects
appropria te hemisphere independently giving
possibility of two cycles running in parallel one in
each hemisphere.
Let’s consider the main current oscillating between
two DC values as a result of being modulated by
load from planetary magnetospheres. As the
current increases (positive gradient of change) the
magnetic field generated by it will also change
(note N and S hemispheres will have different
polarity). The increasing magnetic field will induce
secondary currents, which in turn will create own
magnetic loops that energize sunspots. When the
main current approaches its maximum, its gradient
will fall to zero i.e. no change, no primary
magnetic field induction, no secondary currents, no
SS magnetic loops. Falling main current (negative
gradient of change) will induce magnetic field of
opposite polarity, changing direction of the
secondary current circuits, and therefore polarity of
SS magnetic loops. Rising main current is
responsible for magnetic polarity of say even
cycles, while falling current would be then for the
odd cycles.http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarcurrent.pdf

I think one problem we have when it comes to the climate no matter how one may want to approach it is x+x does not equal a given x climate outcome.

This is why sometimes the climate changes are major when solar activity changes while at other times they are moderate or minor.

Given my reasoning below and my check list for items that may influence the direction of the climate if the climate does not cool (in the near future ) going forward I will reconsider all of my positions.

First my check off list for the climate trend going forward.

Solar Variability – favorable for strong cooling and increasing as the maximum of solar cycle 24 comes to an end.

Geo Magnetic Field – in a weakening mode which should enhance solar effects and contribute to a cooling trend.

Milankovitch Cycles- in contrast to 8000 years ago more favorable for cooling. N.H. summers now corresponding to aphelion.

Land/Ocean Arrangements- very favorable for cooling.

Ice Dynamic- S.H situation has to be watched along with S. Ocean which is cooling.

PDO/AMO/ENSO phase going forward should feature the cold phase with more La Nina’s.

Finally the secondary effects associated with very low solar activity from an increase in geological activity, to a more meridional atmospheric circulation to more clouds as some examples will favor cooling.

Let me try to approach it in this manner. The shortfall when it comes to climate is many are unable to intergrade all the various factors that are involved when it comes to the climate that will not result in a given item (the sun) changing in a given way resulting in an x climate outcome. Somehow this opinion prevails that an x change in solar variability has to immediately translate to an x change climatic response. In addition lag times need to be incorporated into the equation of the climate.

I will add, climate regime change, and natural variation of the climate within a climatic regime are entirely two different things. What throws many off is the natural climatic variations within a particular climatic regime. This is what obscures the solar climate connection.
In addition I will go so far to say the climate can not change into another climatic regime without the aid of solar variability but that does not mean it can not fluctuate within a given climate regime.

Here are the four factors (Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability ,Geo Magnetic Field Strength ,Land/Ocean Arrangements/Ice Dynamic ) which govern the climate of the earth and give it a beat of 1500 years or so but never in an exact regular cycle.

The factors that govern the big picture when it comes to the climate are Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability, and these last three, the Geo Magnetic Field Strength of the Earth , Land /Ocean Arrangements/ Ice Dynamic those last three (geo magnetic field, land/ocean arrangements/ice dynamic) determining how effective Milankovitch Cycles and Solar Variability will be when it comes to impacting the climate.

This explains why the 1470 year climate cycle is there but it varies so much over time.

In addition the evidence is mounting that the climate changes in sync in both hemispheres which eliminates a redistribution of energy within the climatic system for the reason why the climate changes ,which is on weak grounds to begin with ,and strengthens the fact that it is only changes in the total energy coming into the climatic system that can change it enough to bring it into another climate regime.

Further I maintain that all Intrinsic Earth Bound climatic factors are limited as to how much they can change the climate due to the total amount of energy in the climatic system they have to work with. Hence, they have the ability to change the climate within a climate regime( maybe plus or minus 1c) but they can not bring the climate from one regime to another regime. They refine the climate.

Then finally the rogue asteroid impact or maybe super nova explosion some where off in space that at times had a big impact on the climate system which would further obscure or even eliminate at times the 1500 year semi cyclic climatic cycle.

If the authors have cracked the solar code that would be a boon to mankind forever. Even if their work is a stepping stone to even better knowledge, it’s a step in the right direction.

But I will show here reasons to believe their SC25 max prediction of 2022 to be early a year or so.

I’ve been busy and haven’t read the paper yet, but I will in the morning and report back sometime tomorrow. However, I did analyze the solar cycle lengths wrt the all other cycles yesterday, and for what it’s worth, there’s some things to consider.

I used the new v2 SSNs for this and the reported lengths of all 24 solar cycles listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles, where SC24 is listed as starting Jan 2008, not Dec 2008, as David Archibald mentioned. That is basically a year difference which could come into play, or not. Looking at a graph of it does look like it’s late 2008 or early 2009.

The SC24 SIDC v1 average at the 89th month in June was 41, compared to 59 for v2 as of June, a 43.9% difference. So I scaled the SWPC SC24 SSN “predicted” values by 43.9% out to 2020, and projected an estimated total cycle average of 50, at 137 months long. Of course if it’s longer or shorter that est. average will change slightly, but not much because at the tail end of the cycle the sunspot numbers are small.

Looking back across all 24 cycles, only five other cycles are around 50 or less. Here they are, including the months to the smoothed cycle maximum (from the wiki article):

Most of those low cycles (not incl incomplete SC24) as a general rule were longer the less active they were. 11 other cycles were near 10 years long plus or minus a few months, and they averaged 67-128 in SSN. The 24 cycle overall average length is 130 months, just shy of 11 years.

My educated guess is SC24 will be more than ten years long, more like 135 to 150 months long, or about 11.25 to 12.5 years long, my final estimate.

If SC24 started in Jan 2008 then that puts the minimum between 2019.25 to 2020.5. If it started in Jan 2009, it’ll end sometime between 2020.25 to 2021.5.

In my first comment, I said it was three years to the maximum from the minimum. That’s the onset of the maximum. Using the wiki numbers for the date of the smoothed cycle maximums, the 24 cycle overall average min to max time was 50 months, and the average for the six low cycles was 57.7 months. I’m going to use 48 months – 4 years – for the smoothed max from the minimum.

Which puts the SC25 onset to the maximum somewhere between 2022-2024, and to the smoothed maximum sometime between 2023.25-2025.5. That’s about the same answer I got before when I was winging it!

OB & Geoff, thanks for pointing to the adjusted sunspot numbers. I knew the changes were supposed to be released July 1, 2015, but then there was no news and I haven’t seen anyone linking to adjusted series. I figured there would be fanfare at wuwt, but July 1 passed without any. (That seems a little sneaky & suspicious …so definitely in character for that locale.)

I’ve just taken a look at the new series and checked the effect on SCD (solar cycle deceleration) & RI (sunspot integral):

almost none (exactly as I anticipated and foreshadowed in an article a year-&-a-half ago, based on potential adjustment explorations I did sometime before then)

Those looking at RI will notice that the threshold for SST south of the thermal equator moved from 45 to 74, just as anyone would expect from the adjustment factor of 0.6 (check 45/0.6).

One thing that caught my eye was that the adjustments to the more recent record are more complex. I’ve no time to explore that further today, but of course it makes me suspicious.

When BDO (bidecadal oscillation) is included in the analysis, correlations north & south of the climatological thermal equator are maximized when the wavelet parameters are tuned precisely to Jupiter-Earth-Venus Osculating Cycle Length parameters.

I suspect that in aggregate there will be little change, but the details will highlight (in particular) problems with Southern Ocean adjustments (it will be plain as day according to preliminaries and NOAA will NOT be able to deny it anymore than they can deny a straight line is straight — take this literally).

Thanks oldbrew…its looks like V2, which IMHO does not allow for the Waldmeier Jump in its entirety. I estimate the correction factor to be about 12% which seems a bit short considering Svalgaard says the jump is 22% -20%. My graph shows how they have been playing around with the correction factor.

Actually oldbrews graph (solen) is confusing in my browser. The image shown is V1 and when clicked on displays V2. I think WordPress is having trouble with images that use the same name but have been modified. I have a similar prob with my altered Carl’s graph image posted earlier in this thread.

After intensive verifications and some inevitable bugs, we have now successfully completed this transition. The new numbers for June seamlessly extend the recalibrated historical sunspot series. Except for the announced elimination of the 0.6 conventional factor, absolutely no tweaking of the data was done

No tweaking?

The SILSO sunspot record has basically become the Svalgaard count. They have taken almost all of his recommendations. Also by not removing the whole Waldmeier Factor SC24 moves closer to SC14, which also suits Svalgaard. SILSO have dropped the ball.

I agree on the speciousness of making such a long-term prediction of any coming “cold” age with any solar science, at present, short of the recently-obtained low sunspot values. The journalists are at it again in “death by ice” now, and most responsible solar scientists should know better than to cast long-term passes on the data as to what the world will look like in 2050 etc. Some of my regular correspondents in solar science just say that we’re “due for one” (a solar min) and that is almost as accurate a prediction as any you will get. Why? Predicting any long term extended min (or max for that matter) STILL centres on obtaining sunspot max values, which can STILL only be obtained as we move into them, in time, in the respective cycle. That is in no way an attempt to avoid what is looking like such a phase coming, on the other hand, from the accumulating science evidence (which in all cases is heavy and awe-inspiring). My (author Steven Haywood Yaskell) own science correspondent in my recent book Grand Phases On The Sun , Dr. Cornelis de Jager (winner of the solar science awards Hale and Janssons (sic)) still lays sunspot max values out as the divisor, even if he was himself a predicting agent of some Maunder type min in the next 90 years in one paper (J of Cosmology 2009-10?). This due to suspicious behavior since 1968 and recently in 2009, where the surface-recorded tachocline oscillations (recorded) when compared with those of the 1620-ish tachocline oscillations (reconstructed) look very similar. The downward amplitudes of Hale Cycle quasi-harmonics in different time bunches (46-60 yr and 20 yr) in the tachocline are closely looped downward in either the 1620 – 1968-2009 cases and overlap tightly. They DO NOT do so from 1724-1924. Which made de Jager redefine the 1724-1924 era as a “normal” solar-period of “regular” cycles. The 1620 downward spike was due to a CHAOTIC Gleissberg interruption downward, the 1724 spike was “normal” and the 1924 spike was abnormally spiked upward – causing a mini max until c. 2009. The most recent one was chaotically struck downward (last decade). De Jager and his friend Duhau used “phase diagrams” to isolate when chaotic Gleissberg strikes could be found in the data. Solar max coordinates 93.38 and min, 10.34, are the cross over points. Respectfully, he and Duhau were critiqued on the proxy data, and was reminded by my and his science critic, Leif Svalgaard, that Halstatt (sic) Cycle long-term series show that in times of positive phase (which Earth has been in since 1935) no deep minima occur, reconstructed from C14 proxies. So, we may be in the clear of DEEP solar minima for another 2,000 years and, coming on the radar screen is just a short, “half-grand” Dalton-type (. 20 years long not 50 +). Being a dynamic open boundary system, however, the sun might just kick into high gear again and be super-active due to something else we do not know. And we do not know a LOT. What about LIAs? Are these just hydrological phenomena (they seem so) or are they connected to the sun in some way? What else effects Earth climate, geophysically, say, independent of the sun? And so on. The Earth N. hem weather looks a lot like Cycle 14-16 – or, ia “normal” solar period (??). Right exactly at this moment it looks and feels like Earth did c. July 20, 1911 judging by the records the weather service kept : longish and rough snowy winters and shortish bright hot summers and unevenly severe droughts all over the place that last all winter long (as in “post-regular cycle”-based 1930s USA “dustbowls”). Remember, everybody can be wrong in all of this, most just a bit right – and no one has a crystal ball.

This article is good but it needs to emphasize the prolonged minimum solar /volcanic climate connection( which it does not mention ), and other prolonged minimum solar climate connections such as an increase in galactic cosmic rays more clouds, a more meridional atmospheric circulation due to ozone distribution/concentration changes (which it does not do ) which all lead to cooler temperatures and more extremes .

In addition they do not factor the relative strength of the earth’s magnetic field.

When this is added to the context of this article I think one has a comprehensive explanation as to how the start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period may have taken place and how like then (around 1275 AD) is similar to today with perhaps a similar result taken place going forward from this point in time.



I want to add the Wolf Solar Minimum went from 1280-1350 AD ,followed by the Sporer Minimum from 1450-1550 AD.

This Wolf Minimum corresponding to the onset of the Little Ice Age.

John Casey the head of the Space and Science Center, has shown through the data a prolonged minimum solar event/major volcanic eruption correlation.

Today, I say again is very similar to 1275 AD. If prolonged minimum solar conditions become entrenched (similar to the Wolf Minimum) accompanied by Major Volcanic Activity I say a Little Ice Age will once again be in the making.

Milankovitch Cycles still favoring cold N.H. summers if not more so then during the last Little Ice Age , while the Geo Magnetic Field is weaker in contrast to the last Little Ice Age.

I would not be surprised if the next Little Ice Age comes about if the prolonged solar minimum expectations are realized in full.

Thanks SdP. Obviously more volcanoes pumping gases and material into the atmosphere would be expected to have some effect on climate. Whether a shorter or longer term effect might depend on the frequency and/or intensity.

Also the lower intensity of solar activity could possibly make geological formations more prone to contraction.

One may ask why was the YD more severe then the Little Ice Age ,and my explanation is the ice dynamic at the time of the YD was much more favorable which means the amount of climate forcing needed to bring about a climatic change was much less during the time of the YD.

Every major volcanic eruption has been documented with a degree of global cooling..

The nonsense about the lack of a major volcanic eruption not producing a global cooling effect to some degree is just that, nonsense. Table 3 from the above detailed volcanic study shows the clear effects a major volcanic eruption will have on the atmosphere and has overwhelming support other then the few that have posted their counter assertions here which are 100% false.